WRITTEN QUESTION P-1971/99 by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Infringement of Directives 91/0628/EEC and 95/0029/EEC.
Date: 1999-10-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF, Italy, animal welfare, customs, directive (EU), infringement of EU law, protection of animal life, veterinary inspection

20.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 170 E/133

In view of this, can the Council answer the following questions:

1. Has the above-mentioned problem been discussed within the EU Council of Ministers?

2. Approximately how many people from central and eastern European countries are granted six-month

Schengen visas both in Austria in particular and in the EU as a whole?

3. What measures does the Council consider to be appropriate to curtail
detrimental both to the labour market and to competition in the Union?

this practice which is

4. Has the Council investigated this matter?

5. Does the Council consider that this practice is compatible with EU competition law?

6.

7.

If not, what measures does the Council intend to take to curtail this practice?

If so, how does the Council justify its position?

Reply

(9 December 1999)

The Council is not aware of the practices mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Council would draw the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to the fact that, for the purposes of the
Schengen Convention, a visa for a stay of more than three months is a national visa issued by each
Contracting Party in accordance with its own legislation.

(2000/C 170 E/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1971/99

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Infringement of Directives 91/0628/EEC and 95/0029/EEC

(19 October 1999)

In June 1998 the Netherlands Association for the Protection of Animals (Nederlandse Vereniging tot
Bescherming van Dieren) carried out a detailed investigation into compliance with European Directives
91/0628/EEC (1) and 95/0029/EEC (2) at the Italian border posts at Gorizia, Fernetti and Prosecco. It
emerged from this investigation, which is supported by documentary evidence, that the directives were
being flagrantly violated and the animals concerned appallingly ill-treated. It is clear from the fact that
video recordings of similar incidents were made in the same places in 1994 and 1995 that this was not a
one-off occurrence.

Does the Commission agree that Directives 91/0628/EEC and 95/0029/EEC are being most

1.
inadequately implemented at Italy(cid:146)s border posts?

2. What is the Italian Government doing to put an end to this scandalous state of affairs?

Is sufficient use being made of the possibilities offered by the Directives of withdrawing benefits and

3.
imposing penalties?

4. What is the ultimate sanction that can be used against the Italian Government if it fails to take
appropriate steps to exercise controls over the implementation of the directives?

5. What steps does the Commission, in its capacity as guardian of the Treaties, propose to take?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.
(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

C 170 E/134

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1999)

The Commission is aware of the problems in relation to animal welfare at the frontier posts
1.
concerned. Several veterinary inspection missions of the Commission(cid:146)s food and veterinary office (FVO)
have been carried out in Gorizia and Prosecco. Following the missions, detailed recommendations were
submitted to the Italian authorities and some improvements were noted. Unfortunately the recent
complaints indicate that those improvements may not have been permanent.

2.
According to the Italian authorities the number of official vets at the posts concerned has been
increased and training courses on good animal welfare practices for staff and workers at the posts have
been held.

3.
The Commission does not consider sufficient use is being made of the possibilities offered by the
directives. However, because Council Directive 95/0029/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Directive 91/0628/
EEC concerning the protection of animals during transport, does not apply outside the territory of the
Community, legal difficulties do exist in enforcing the national legislation transposing these texts where the
neglect or mistreatment of the animals occurred before they reach the Italian frontier.

4.
If infringement proceedings are brought against a Member State by the Commission, and the Court
of justice subsequently finds that the Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty,
and the Member State concerned fails to comply with the judgement, the Commission may open a second
case under Article 228 (2) of the EC Treaty (ex Article 171) and request that a lump sum or penalty be
paid by the Member State concerned. If the Court of justice finds that the Member State has not complied
with its judgement, it may impose such a payment, the maximum amount of which is not specified in the
EC Treaty.

Furthermore, Commission Regulation (EC) 0615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed
application rules for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during
transport (1) make conditional the granting of the export refund on the satisfactory implementation of the
provisions of Directive 91/0628/EEC. Accordingly there is a direct consequence on the financing, by the
European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF), of the refunds in cases where substantial
breaches of the animal welfare conditions are noted.

5.
The Commission is reviewing the matter in the light of a recent FVO report and further evidence
supplied by animal welfare groups with a view to possibly opening proceedings under Article 226
(ex Article 169) EC Treaty. The Commission also intends to give further attention to the possibility of
conclusion of bilateral agreements with the third countries concerned as a means of overcoming the
problems of enforceability mentioned above. The findings of the inspections on the spot carried out by the
Commission have to be assessed in respect of the refund granted for bovine animals exported via the
border inspection post concerned.

(1) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.

(2000/C 170 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1989/99

by Norbert Glante (PSE)to the Commission

(28 October 1999)

Subject: Commission measures to prepare a decision on price-fixing for books

In its resolution (B4-0991/98) of 20 November 1998 on common book price-fixing across borders (1), the
European Parliament made the following decisions, inter alia:

2.
Calls on the Commission, before a final decision is taken concerning the procedures outstanding,
to establish reliable and comparable indicators and information on the overall situation and the
situation in sections of the book markets in individual Member States and language areas of the EU;